The kind of thinking that leads people to write this kind of story is bizarre to me. It seems that some believe that you simply cannot do anything without having a college degree in that subject. I know many STEM professionals who practice art, be it drawing, writing, recording and performing music, and so forth. I know many more STEM professionals who enjoy the art produced by others who create such things. One does not have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to attend college to enjoy picking up a guitar and playing with the band.

Another point that the article rails on is this idea of liberal arts degrees being necessary for "clear thinking". This is ludicrous in that STEM fields are ones in which ambiguity is typically unacceptable! Clear, concise thoughts are the bread and butter of STEM, so much so that many occupations require that the thoughts are so clear and unambiguous that they may be interpreted by a computer system.

This is more than just nuance; each of these systems are different and completely incompatible. It really means that the argument of "It's just Unix" and therefore the same/similar is ignorant or possibly maliciously false to further a political point.

The demand for this technology is there, as demonstrated by the popularity of 3D films. The availability of the technology to the consumer audience at the price point that will spark widespread adoption is not.

The technology was developed and released at a time when consumers have little extra money to adopt the technology. Alongside that, the distribution model for 3DTV is flawed, demanding a clear chain of the 3DTV capable devices all be purchased in order to enable the functionality. Finally, there's not a single implementation of 3DTV, but rather several including side-by-side, interlace, every-other-frame, which has led to some interesting bugs affecting specific makes and models that fail to support these methods correctly.

I believe my first point is ultimately what has delayed widespread adoption of 3DTV tech and caused some to call it a "fad".

By "Piercing the Firewall", I didn't mean to imply that NAT should be considered a firewall, but rather to allude to a class of techniques to get around network restrictions such as port, content, or IP based filtering for both malicious and benign purposes.

You seem to think people are rational, or can be forced into rational thinking. This is not the case. For example, even now in times of drought and mandatory water conservation, we have HOAs attempting to enforce lawn watering rules.

To fight against this specific issue here in San Diego, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales has been pushing for CA AB2104 which would prevent the HOA from imposing rules upon homeowners observing water regulations. It's a sad state of affairs, but NIMBYism isn't rational.

No, it wouldn't. Furthermore, we've been deactivated San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) because the penny-wise dickheads at the top cut corners and ended up making some really bad engineering decisions that led to radiation leakage.

With NIMBYism and the well-known desire of businessmen to make money over safety, I don't imagine we'll be seeing nuclear come into vogue again anytime soon.

We're getting one in Carlsbad, CA, in the north of San Diego County. The upside is that it provides a nice local source of fresh water. The downside is that it costs twice as much per gallon and has a minimum purchase contract, regardless of usage and need.

California may be experiencing a drought now, but other years this becomes an unnecessary cost that may affect people of differing incomes unequally.

That, too, is rather misleading. NAT only provides a sense of security, as the devices may not be addressed directly. However if you assume that because your devices are behind a NAT, that they're secure from external attack, you can be easily surprised when one device acts as a portal to the rest. Piercing the Firewall is not a new concept.